"But will they do it?" Challenging assumptions and incivility in the academic discourse on high-intensity interval training

Debate over whether to promote high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in public-health contexts has centred on assumptions that people will have negative psychological responses to HIIT, leading to poor adoption and adherence. We challenge these assumptions through reviews of (1) studies that have measured psychological responses to HIIT and (2) studies that have measured adherence to HIIT protocols in supervised or unsupervised settings. Overall, the evidence suggests that HIIT is just as enjoyable as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). In supervised situations, on average, adherence is similarly high for HIIT and MICT (>89%). In unsupervised situations, adherence is similarly lower for both HIIT and MICT (<69%). Based on these findings, we recommend that attention be directed toward improving behaviour-change and maintenance for all types of exercise. Resources are better spent addressing fundamental questions about exercise initiation and adherence, than perpetuating a vitriolic and uncivil debate over the value of HIIT versus MICT. We discuss how debate, incivility, and bullying undermine scientific progress and we issue a call for respectful, civil dialogue in academic HIIT discussions. We conclude with recommendations that can be used by all members of the scientific community to practice, champion, and defend civil discourse.